Agony of the election: How power can be abused

Agony of the election: How power can be abused

Thomas Hidya Tjaya, Jakarta

During this presidential election week voters are, once again,
faced with a difficult decision over electing their leaders. For
a variety of reasons the decision may be agonizing for many. A
large number of people have complained about the lack of strong,
charismatic leaders among the candidates. Others find all the
candidates' weaknesses too much to bear.

In such circumstances it is no surprise that abstention has
become an attractive option. Some prospective voters believe that
by not casting their vote they will be blameless and take no
responsibility whatsoever if the leaders elected end up ruining
the country.

Here we find the agony that voters often find themselves in
when it comes to an election. Given the unattractive character of
the present candidates, they find it difficult to establish
criteria for the vote. When people ask, "Whom will you vote
for?", there is usually a lingering anxiety on their part about
their own choice.

Some political analysts have suggested that people cast their
vote according to their conscience. But the pluses and minuses
regarding the suitability of the candidates for leadership often
appear to have equal weight. As a result, the decision about the
vote is often made on a whim in the polling booth.

Such feelings of anxiety and uncertainty over the vote are
fully understandable. People are deeply aware that their
individual votes will make a great difference collectively. Once
a particular pair of candidates gets elected and the General
Elections Commission announces the result of the election, there
is no turning back.

Since the candidates are officially elected through a
democratic process, people (and the other candidates, too) should
accept the result graciously. They may immediately begin to
imagine what the country will look like in the upcoming five
years under the new leadership.

Different people will raise different questions about the
newly elected and their governing style: Are they market-
friendly? Are they really going to fight against corruption as
they promised in their campaign? Are they serious about improving
the quality of life of the poor and eradicating all forms of
discrimination in this country? There will be many such questions
indeed.

I guess this is one of the greatest worries for voters: What
if the country takes a turn for the worse under the new
leadership? What if they (deliberately) fail to live up to the
good promises they have made, and instead of serving the public
interest, seek to promote whatever is to their own personal
advantage? Citizens everywhere always worry that the leaders of
their country abuse the power they wield. Politicians often
unscrupulously do whatever they can do, thinking that they can
get away with it.

The recent interview of Bill Clinton by Dan Rather in 60
Minutes reveals precisely this point. Talking about his sexual
relationship with Monica Lewinsky, Clinton admitted, "I did it
for the worst possible reason." The reason he was referring to
was simply because he could do it: "Just because I could. I think
that's just about the most morally indefensible reason anybody
could have for doing anything." Here the distinction between what
one can do and what one should do becomes crucial.

The fact that one can commit a particular deed does not
entitle one to do it. Clinton acknowledges that that was the
worst possible reason for doing anything. When the line of
demarcation between our capacity for doing something and the
necessity for doing so gets blurred, what we often end up making
is a big mistake. This danger is particularly apparent among
politicians, as they often do things using their political power,
thinking that nobody is going to stop them and that they will get
away with it.

This brings to mind the conversation between Socrates and his
friends in Plato's famous book, the Republic. One of Socrates'
interlocutors, Glaucon, tries to convince his friends that the
will to do justice voluntarily is very difficult to come by.
Using a myth that recounts the power of a certain ring to make a
person wearing it invisible, he observes that no one, in
possession of such a ring, would be "so incorruptible that he
would stay on the path of justice or stay away from other
people's property, when he could take whatever he wanted from the
marketplace with impunity."

His conclusion is hard to swallow, though it sounds true:
"One is never just, willingly, but only when compelled to be. No
one believes justice to be a good when it is kept private, since,
wherever a person thinks he can do injustice with impunity, he
does it." While not everybody will agree with his thought, this
observation may at least serve as a warning that each of us,
including politicians, may do things, not out of necessity but
rather simply because we can. Those who wield power tend to
succumb to such a temptation, thinking that the very power will
shield them from taking responsibility for the action.

If this is the case, what can we do, in particular in the
context of the election under way? There are at least two
relevant points worth making here.

First, we may hope that the newly elected leaders will keep
the promises they have made. We may have to rely on their moral
integrity to serve the people of this country sincerely.

Second, since power tends to corrupt, even at the expense of
the future of this country, we should make an extra effort to
ensure that the system of checks and balances on the new
government's power works.

A variety of political institutions and the media should be
encouraged to play a more active part in combating the abuse of
power. The election is just the beginning of another political
journey for the country. It would be best, therefore, to stay
alert from the outset to things that may ruin all of us as a
nation.

The writer is a lecturer at the Driyarkara School of
Philosophy in Jakarta and a Fordham University graduate.